Smith v. Smith (In re Smith), 489 B.R. 875

Debtor filed Chapter 7 on Feb 28, 2012; plaintiffs Smith and Browns filed adversary complaints alleging §523(a)(2), (a)(4), and §727(d)(1) claims and related state court actions.
Disclosures were delayed; Smith and Browns did not appear timely in debtor’s case; extension requests were granted after an initial discharge in June 2012.
Smith’s adversary complaint pro se alleged harassment, defamation, fraud, and dischargeability issues; Browns’ pro se complaint asserted §523(a)(2) and §523(a)(6) theories and sought discharge revocation.
Court initially treated Smith’s motion as a stay-relief matter before deciding to proceed via adversary proceeding; later determined stay relief was not appropriate before determining dischargeability.
Court granted in part and denied in part debtor’s 12(b)(6), 12(e), and 12(f) motions; plaintiffs were given 21 days to amend their complaints; debtor to answer within 21 days of amendment.
Overall, the memorandum resolves pleading deficiencies, indicates which claims are viable, and sets forth the procedural path for amended complaints.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith’s §523(a)(2) claim is viable	Smith alleges misrepresentations yielding nondischargeable debt.	Smith failed to plead extension of credit and misrepresentation.	§523(a)(2)(A) claim dismissed for lack of viable misrepresentation/credit facts.
Whether attorney fees may be claimed	Smith seeks attorney fees as part of relief.	Rule 7008(b) requires a pleaded claim for fees with basis.	Denied; must plead as a claim with proper basis; otherwise not recoverable.
Whether §523(a)(4) claim is viable	Smith alleges fiduciary breach via executor status.	No pleaded fiduciary relationship and lack-standing to bring §523(a)(4) for others.	Dismissed for lack of standing and absence of fiduciary relationship.
Whether §727(d)(1) revocation is viable vs §727(a)(4)(A) objection	Discharge should be revoked for fraud/misrepresentations in schedules.	Timeliness/knowledge issues and confusion about proceeding type.	As to several properties, claims dismissed for lack of particularity or lack of material relation; others viable under §727(a)(4)(A) analysis.
Whether §523(a)(6) claim is sufficiently stated and timely	Harassment and willful/malicious injury alleged over years; seeks nondischargeability.	Statute-of-limitations concerns; pleading insufficient to show specific acts.	Not fully resolved; §523(a)(6) claims discussed; amendment permitted to clarify and plead specifically.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal pleading standard; pro se pleadings afforded leniency)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requires plausibility, not mere possible claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading; Rule 9(b) special cases)